< August 30 September 1 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Destroyer[edit]

Desktop Destroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reason for notability of this application given. Google gives ~470 hits ([1]) but some are about a different program, and practically all the others are just links to various download sites. I don't see any substantial secondary coverage. Black Kite 23:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Can confirm that it was well known a few years back. On par with Icy Tower. Ottre (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Strong Keep this program was quite popular a few years ago, so is probably notable enough.--UltraMagnus (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but improve and source. Some quick google-news searching turns up this mention in a Dutch newspaper from 2003. --Delirium (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete software comes and goes - let it die WikiScrubber (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I feel that software known to a lot of more people can be considered notable without coverage from media sources. However, sources are of course necessary for all articles and some proof of notability will eventually be needed. It should be kept for the time being, as editors are clearly quite aware of the program and there is no deadline. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up! Magazine[edit]

What's Up! Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no reliable sources to establish the notability of a small music magazine. Harro5 23:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find anything in several searches. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks interesting, maybe will be important in the future we must give them a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click house[edit]

Click house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced stub that appears to be original research about a sub-genre of music. The article says this name may not be recognised in the 'mainstream', and finishes "It very closely relates to a form of electronic music called Microhouse. Some would argue it is indistinguishable." Harro5 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It's not real and it's made up. Besides, it's another name for microhouse. Noble12345 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footbo[edit]

Footbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article that does not establish WP:WEB notability. The only reliable source listed in a TechCrunch page mentioning the future launch of the website; others are personal blogs or soccer fan sites. Harro5 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops - changing my vote to neutral. Thanks for checking. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Davies[edit]

Charlton Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Drujko[edit]

Marina Drujko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria under WP:BIO. Wronkiew (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Negri[edit]

Adriano Negri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football who has never played in a fully professional league (latest info is that he may get a place in the reserve team of a club at the 10th level in England!), thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but as usual, it was removed by an IP without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Goes Pop![edit]

Sean Goes Pop! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted (G11/A7) as spam / non-notable. Salted as well. Black Kite 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor4u[edit]

Tutor4u (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable company or service provider; content continually reintroduced (might suggest a bit of protection?) A bot has also tagged it as a blatant copyvio of http://tutor4u.me.uk/aboutus.html. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pinch (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jerry Bruckheimer. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy (2002)[edit]

The Legacy (2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pilot TV show that never was (on a network that hardly was). Completely fails WP:N, completely lacks multiple independent reliable sources (probably because of the lack of any significance or notability).

Notability isn't inheritable -- even if the producer is notable, each of his child works must have "multiple independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" to warrant their own articles. There is zero chance of that with a pilot TV show that never aired (and even if it had, we'd need more than a date on IMDB to warrant its own article). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0 Toolbar[edit]

Web 2.0 Toolbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a non-notable piece of software. The article is sourced to blogs, and Google turns up many more; plus I found one review on a download site [2]; but I don't think that suffices to warrant an article. Note that the article was created by User:Bostondave, while the software's creator is called David and apparently located near Boston [3]. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter X[edit]

Fighter X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by author. Non-notable artist, per WP:MUSIC. No independent coverage--sources are myspace, bulletin boards, self-generated (not WP:RS). justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Label is owned by another nn artist, Kids Get Hit by Buses, which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Definitely not one that meets WP:MUSIC's criterion of "...one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe Fighter X falls in criteria #7 under "musicians and ensembles" in WP:Music. "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". As far as I see, Fighter X is the most prominent representative of breakcore, and probably of chiptunes in the greater Seattle area. I will search for references to support this claim if needed. Shadowthief0 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can insert any references to this effect that would be helpful. All claims must be verifiable in reliable sources to be included. Cheers... justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well, I've found a short interview with him [1], and a few more articles mentioning the recent street performance at the Penny Arcade Expo [2] [3] (though few people seem to have known who he is), but nothing to the effect that he is a particularly prominent music producer in any genre or any local scene. I suppose for now, he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Shadowthief0 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=622543
  2. ^ http://kotaku.com/5043829/a-taste-of-pax-bit-boxing
  3. ^ http://videogameplayerz.net/content/pax-2008-8-bit-freestyle
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada devanga chettiar[edit]

Kannada devanga chettiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No context, no lead section. It is unclear whether this article is about a living person, a deity, a village, or something else. Delete as WP:NONSENSE.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Dumb Ass[edit]

American Dumb Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested by author, total lack of WP:RS for WP:V ... violatesWP:CRYSTAL. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 19:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rowlands[edit]

Mark Rowlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no indication in the article that it passes WP:PROF Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not careless really, just part of the cleanup of Dan Schneider's vanity spam. Good catch, but good faith not really in doubt I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can be careless in perfect good faith. I extend to my colleagues here the assumption that they are doing what they do in the interest of the encyclopedia, rather than to mess things up or be unfair or pursue personal agendas--that's the AGF. But as for being careless, or ignorant, I am careless or ignorant myself quite often enough that I assume other well-intentioned people will sometimes be so also. GF refers to the intention. I hope to be told when I am careless, and I intend to tell others also. If I didn't extend GF to them, I wouldn't bother. In cleaning up a bunch of spam or other junk, it is important to keep in mind that some of the stuff that looks like spam may be justifiable, and check each one. DGG (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz: Starrin & Stylin'[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bratz: Starrin & Stylin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating the following related pages:

Bratz Genie Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bratz Forever Diamondz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bratz Kidz: Sleep-Over Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These movies seem to all be non-notable because I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movies' notability (except one review). Schuym1 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed template Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 19:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Deleted and salted.   jj137 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XPanel[edit]

XPanel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional article, twice speedied G11, twice recreated, listed here so that it can be salted. The creator has also been reported at WP:UAA. Delete and salt.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Mr.Z-man 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lianne Morgan[edit]

Lianne Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Not even worth a redirect to Spice Girls, as she's hardly the equivelant of the Fifth Beatle. Dalejenkins | 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the above user is a frequent editor of the article in question. Dalejenkins | 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I've edited it three times, mostly to revert vandalism, and the last of my edits was in June. Hardly a frequent contributor. However, it's probably worth mentioning that the article's creator appears to have auditioned for the group at one stage and created several articles apparently relating to fellow auditionees.[35] [36] A possible conflict of interest issue perhaps. Having said that, I still think it's probably worth having a redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does that nullify his argument? Zagalejo^^^ 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. I think I was just a bit put out by Dalejenkins's note after my initial comments yesterday and wanted to demonstrate my impartiality. While looking through the page's history, I discovered who had created it and I felt it was probably worth noting it on this page because there could be a conflict of interest. I wondered whether the people concerned (including Ms Morgan herself) were friends of this person. I don't believe Lianne Morgan is notable enough for her own article, but redirects are always a useful thing to have, especially as she was a member of the group. So I see no reason not to redirect this to Spice Girls. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, I was responding to Dalejenkins. I'm fine with a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Apologies for the mix up. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardonnez-moi[edit]

Pardonnez-moi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment - Ghits for "Pardonnez-moi" + "Maïwenn Le Besco": 159 in English, 1660 in French, 3050 over all Ed "unreachable by rational discourse" Fitzgerald(t / c) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le bal des actrices[edit]

Le bal des actrices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Please refer to policy (WP:NFF), which is explicit that unreleased films are NOT notable for these reasons. Future films are only notable if there is something notable about the production, and no such notability is shown. Mayalld (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFF is a very short section which does NOT explicity say what you say it explicitly says. Can you please explain, with quotations from NFF, what you mean? (Also, FWIW, it isn't policy.) AndyJones (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, sorry, guideline! The first sentence of the second paragraph is the relevant part Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but that's exactly what Girolamo is saying, surely: notable director + famous star = notable movie. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but your suggestion that NFF explicitly rebuts that argument is just plain wrong. In view of the comments which have been made here, can you explain why you think this film is not notable? "No evidence that it is" doesn't carry much weight. AndyJones (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading is that the standard for future films is higher. The standard is NOT that the film will be notable when released, but that the process of making the film must be in some way notable. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Production" in this instance must refer to the project itself – "Johnny Depp appeared in Stanley Kubrick's production of 'With Six You Get Eggroll'" – not to the process of making the film. It would be extremely rare that, in advance of a film's release, enough would be known about the process of making a particular film to make it notable on that account. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would be rare, but thatit, I believe the intention. Broadly speaking, per WP:CRYSTAL we don't do articles about future events. Now, if a film production is noteworthy, because (say) the director has come out of retirement, or the film brings together two huge stars who have never worked together, or employs new technology etc. etc. it becomes notable. The fact that upon release it is likely to be notable doesn't cut it in my book. Mayalld (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Note (rapper)[edit]

C-Note (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination in response to re-PROD of previously PROD/de-PROD'd article. The most recent PROD nominator stated "fails WP:MUSIC", while the first PROD nominator stated simply "notability"; the remover of the first PROD stated "charting artist meets WP:MUSIC". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I continue to fail to see why this is germane. There are no primary sources provided! Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument essentially amounts to: "The article does not pass WP:MUSIC bullet 1, and so should be deleted". I see no reason to disregard the other points of the guideline here. Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're the author, can you demonstrate non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications? I would be happy to reconsider but for now my !vote from last Thursday still stands. JBsupreme (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being as the artist made the Billboard charts, we have definitive evidence of his having reached a level of significance - that's what WP:MUSIC is supposed to measure. MIRS are therefore supplementary, rather than necessary. For reasons that are unclear, some editors have, of late, decided that hip-hop should not be held to WP:MUSIC and should instead be judged only according to its first bullet, which is just WP:BIO. (A similar result was reached in T-Rock's AfD/DRV's, which I regard as astoundingly misguided.) Again, WP:MUSIC is here for good reason, and I don't see any compelling reason to ignore it. His most recent album received an Allmusic review (which is cited in the article), and that's eight years down the line from his 1999 charting album. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout teams[edit]

Wipeout teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Closed as per WP:SNOWBALL - Its obvious which way this is going. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich[edit]

One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. See additional closing rationale on talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Elite Four members[edit]

List of Elite Four members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. None are in the article, and other sources fail to meet their requirements for reliability or independence. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment from nominator: I still haven't seen any truly independent reliable sources covering this topic, and zero sources have been added to the article. But I would support a merge or redirect if there were no consensus to delete. In the longer run, if someone did actually find appropriate sources to create a notable article, I would have no prejudice against re-creating the article. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no notability for an independent article? Also, I don't think this goes into excessive detail. Each character in the article has only a brief paragraph or two—it doesn't seem excessive to me. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not good? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no justification for it to be its own article? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I apologize for the redlink. I forgot what I was doing. By "excessive" in-world detail I mean in relation to the larger coverage of a fictional work. I take my guidance from WP:PLOT, which I interpret to mean that the discussion of real-world reception, impact, and significance should be given substantially greater coverage than the description of in-world elements. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response DGG's initial comment, I'd like to point out (for the sake of argument) that, as of this comment, no one has voted for delete, simply merge and redirect, a method by which no vital information would be lost. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: That makes sense. I agree; we can let this one go. It should be merged and redirected to the main list of characters. Thanks for the elaboration, Ningauble and Jelly Soup. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. due to few reliable sources and lack of evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Also written promotionally. Band is now defunct. However, I am going to userfy this to my own space and try to rewrite it if I can find enough material - there does appear to be *some* RS out there. Black Kite 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlock (band)[edit]

Interlock (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. This article has been lying around for several months. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella's Landing Marina[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arabella's Landing Marina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot[edit]

Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. (I previously tagged the article for speedy deletion, but it was disputed.) Randomran (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nutshell of WP:V is "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". Notice that 3rd party isn't there. If you wanted WP:N, that's more than fair of course. I do think that minor character lists are a fine organizational scheme for an overall notable subject as long as the material is verifiable (and it is here). Hobit (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help to look at WP:PROVEIT which is a subsection of our verifiability policy, stating that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have known that eh? Thanks for pointing it out. In any case, there seem to be plenty of reliable 3rd party sources for each of these characters. The articles just aren't primarily focused on the character, making WP:N still an issue, but third party sources exist (for example [41] and [42]. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, I definitely see some coverage of other more notable characters in there. But I'm having trouble parsing out any information on these "minor characters" in those two sources. Also, the first source looks to be a reprint of a press release, which makes it insufficiently independent. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, could you explain the difference between WP:N and WP:V? I read WP:V as saying we shouldn't have articles on things that don't have third-party RS that _can_ be cited. But WP:V allows us to use primary sources as sources. So we have a RS (more than one: as only part of that is a press release and I didn't spend that long looking for other sources) and we have all the info in primary sources. The material is verifiable. Hobit (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the two, combined, is that we don't allow articles written entirely from primary sources, and that a reliable third party source with only a trivial mention (e.g.: "X exists") would be gaming the system. You'd need to verify at least a few important facts in a reliable third party source in order to have have "significant" coverage. WP:N says "significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". But again, I'm not sure I saw mention of the minor characters in the source you dug up. Not trying to be difficult, but I might have missed it. Do you have a quote? Randomran (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest portion of the difference is that WP:V applies to content while WP:N applies to articles. WP:V may stop us from making some specific claim which would be contentious. WP:N would stop us from writing on a topic without some coverage of that topic in a substantive (WP:N says "significant") way. Basically, WP:V is the fundamental tenet that makes wikipedia legitimate (since none of us can be trusted as an authority on anything, as we edit anon). WP:N is sort of a a functional guideline. It allows us to keep article topic selection free from Original research and (hopefully) helps us keep the distribution of articles NPOV in a meaningful sense. Because it is a functional guideline it is difficult to articulate--it doesn't follow from first principles like WP:CON or WP:V and it isn't a unique solution to the problem. WP:N also runs into some problems (like with this AfD) when the reasons for creation of a new article are stylistic, rather than editorial. We didn't spin out Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot because we felt that it was a notionally different topic from Crash Bandicoot but because the Crash Bandicoot article wouldn't hold a full list of characters. In that case, we find ourselves at a loss. the original topic (what WP:N purports to govern) is still notable, but this section of it (what would previously NOT been subject to WP:N) is not. Even FURTHER, fictional topics generate more trouble because coverage of fictional works is nested and hierarchical. Elements of fiction (characters) tend to almost never be covered outside of the work of fiction itself. By contrast, real life relationships are much more free form. We would expect that a discussion of Calculus would mention Newton (as he kinda-sorta created it) but most applications of calc. and even some stories about its derivation would not cover Newton exclusively. As such, it is harder to assign "real life" articles parents and daughters. Fictional elements, however, naturally fit into parent/daughter relationships. So while we couldn't say that "Company X is notable because sector A (which company X is a part of) is notable" but it seems more logical to say "Crash Bandicoot is notable, why wouldn't a list of characters in it be notable?" That's an artifact of this particular second best solution. In my mind, notability is similar to patent protection. Without patents, the incentive to invent new things would be small because those inventions couldn't be protected from copying (which is easy once the original "insight" is done). As a "second best" solution, the government grants a temporary monopoly to the patent holder in exchange for a promise that the invention be released into the public domain after a certain time. In this case the government can't get every inventor to invent without some incentive and its tools are blunt. Wikipedia can't force every item to be sourced from a third party (as that would gut many legit fiction and business articles). We also can't allow articles to be created for any reason. We have a particular solution to the problem in WP:N, but it is by no means unique. Does that huge wall of text help answer your question? Protonk (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bildungsroman_examples_(post-1930)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    ((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:Bildungsroman_examples_(post-1930)))))
Bildungsroman_examples_(post-1930) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The "Pre-1930" version of this list has already been deleted. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bildungsroman examples (pre-1930)‎ noit (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Drag Wellington[edit]

Miss Drag Wellington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

New Zealand drag contest. All refs in google news seem to be local and possibly selfpub. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (footballer)[edit]

John Gibson (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed because he has played for Scotland U19. However, consensus has long been that, with the exception of the Olympics, youth caps do not confer notability. Article has already been deleted via prod once for same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Isidro[edit]

Justin Isidro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elexia Hilton[edit]

Elexia Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been deleted a number of times on this title and at Elexia hilton as hoax/vandalism but the person does seem to exist. Blatant self-promotion. Is she/he notable? — RHaworth (Talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Movie[edit]

Spy Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this cites no source apart from a just-issued magazine, and I can find no reliable confirmation. Nothing in IMDb. Fails WP:NFF. (Argument from JohnCD on removed prod) This entry also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested semi-protection as the article is being heavily vandalised and the AfD template removed by a number of IPs. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, I Don't Love You Anymore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stop, I Don't Love You Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non notable future single. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Please note that It Was You also has an article as the second single off that album. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DriveImage XML[edit]

DriveImage XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think it should have stayed. No need to delete just because it's not much used. Software detailed not notable; just another commercial product for creating images of disks Cupids wings (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Vargas-Bernal[edit]

Rafael Vargas-Bernal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Newly-created article. There is a possible WP:COI with the article's creator, many of whose edits have been to promote Vargas-Bernal, but in the absence of a clear violation of WP:AUTO the more important reason for the nomination is that the subject looks unlikely to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources for verification and notability Davewild (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony D'Costa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tony D'Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't quite tell whether or not this is a hoax, but a Google search does not turn up any sources that would verify this person's existence or the information in the article. I do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that a person with the qualities listed in the article would have at least a few English Google hits; I am willing to reconsider the nomination if sources are provided, but I would have to see how trivial the coverage is and if it establishes proper notability. Cheers, CP 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. Pu[edit]

P. M. Pu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable mathemitician who fails WP:BIO. Article is purely the original research/creation of its creator, who copy/pasted it from his own webpage. Wikipedia is not a mirror nor is it a personal web host for people to archive their website or publish their own research papers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Brittanica is a reliable source whose information can at least be trusted to be well resourced and reliable. Some unknown guy's personal website does none of the above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of notability? Wikipedia:Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The book by Katz is published by the American Mathematical Society which I think is definitely a reliable source for mathematics books. It has a subsection on Pu, hence significant coverage. And I know of no connection between Katz and Pu, except that they work in the same area. So I'd say that the source does establish notability by the very definition of notability. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the notability requirements for academics, he has not been established as notable. Simply being published isn't enough, most professors are published in some capacity. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a pioneer of systolic geometry, says the book. He has proved Pu's inequality for the real projective plane. That's enough to satisfy criterion 1 (his research has made a significant impact). Marcel Berger wrote an article Du côté de chez Pu [48]. Tamrazov writes in the introduction of Moduli and extremal metrics in twisted Riemannian manifolds: "we consider problems on the Riemann Möbius string, including the well-known Pu problem" (translation from MR1489677, my emphasis).
That needs to be explicitly stated in the introduction of the article with in-text citations. I can't be expected to know that. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be written so that someone with no background in that subject could understand what its talking about. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't even googled his name, and yet you're urging deletion. This is a problem. If you think something is non-notable, ask for cleanup first. You will delete (and probably already have) a great many good articles by carelessly voting to delete without any knowledge of the subject at hand. - McCart42 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand your second sentence; what does "most professors are published" mean? Could you perhaps reformulate this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common way of staying that they have works that have been published, like a paper or a book. It doesn't literally mean that the person was published, but that their works were published. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Weak Keep. I looked up Katz' book (ref no 1 in the article). In chapter 2, on page 19 of the book, there is a brief biographical sketch of Pu that roughly corresponds to the biographical data given in the first two sections (Thesis under Loewner and Mainland) in the article. The book also explicitly characterizes Pu's 1952 paper as "seminal". Pu's inequality is listed in the index as appearing in the book multiple times (at least 20). In view of this, together with evidence of high citability of the fuzzy topology paper and because there was a special biographical article published about Pu in Advances in Mathematics (China), I think this passes WP:PROF, even if the case is not very strong. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I have noticed generally that a nomination for deletion generates interest in an article, so my particular thanks to Collectonian for a helpful nomination. The mathematician in question published a paper in '52 which is a seminal article for the field of systolic geometry. The field currently numbers 70 contributors and 160 publications by a conservative count (see my website at www.math.biu.ac.il/~katzmik/sgt.html). On the other hand, it is true that Pu is not notable in any way beyond this paper of his, other than a case in point of human folly in general and chinese communism in particular. Katzmik (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of Pu's highly influential paper with Liu. I will include it in the references. Katzmik (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the person who nominated it didn't intend to nominate it just to get more references. We were pretty sure this was a non-notable professor; I'll change to weak keep, but I'd like to see in-text citations soon. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a result of a rush to judgment. It appears that some of the people urging deletion have a real aversion to asking for cleanup first, and I wonder how many potentially good articles and editors have been deleted or discouraged from writing here because of the unwillingness to consider that just because you haven't heard of something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is non-notable. - McCart42 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - upon further inspection, the references are insufficient to establish notability. I support deletion. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that in-text citations have been added already. Katzmik (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they have not been added yet, there's just a random list of references and no idea where and how they were used. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations are not a requirement for the existence of an article. Paul August ☎ 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. An explicit statement of notability is required to justify inclusion and inline-citations are required to back that up. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To put my 2c in, Paul's statement seems more exact. By its plain current wording, CSDA7 explicitly is a lower standard than notability, and distinguishes itself from verifiability. Only "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" is required, not an inline cited statement. For example, I recently de-speedied an article about an artist and added a book biography of him published that same day under Further reading. Deletion under any rule would then be absurd.John Z (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still puzzled at the claim that the article does not contain in-line citation. The items in the references are numbered, and the text of the page contains references to those numbers. If Kraftlos prefers electronic internal links, I would be much obliged if he could introduce them (there are not too many of them). What exactly is "a random list of references"? Katzmik (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that notability can only be supported by inline citations is egregious mission-creep. What the guideline says is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't references at all. After careful checking and reading the article, none of those were actually references. Most were to point to PU's papers, as noted in the text. The only actual possible ref "Katz" is claimed in the first paragraph (before it was edited) to be the "basis" for the remarks, which are still in a horribly written essay style. I've cleaned up some of it, but I still don't see any actual value in the article. Bibliography item 6 wasn't used or mentioned anywhere at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Simply having some information about works that might establish notability is not the same thing as stating why the subject is notable then using the inline citations to back it up. Those books might say that, but the person reading the article needs to know why without having to search those books. Please re-read Burden of Evidence. Also the Google scholar search is not a valid method for establishing notability, see: WP - Invalid criteria. As it stands now it fails all criteria for notability under the specific academics guidelines; which is what we're working with here, not the general Wikipedia:Notability.
Some other things: simply being mentioned in some books does not constitute "significant coverage". And yes, verifiability is a requirement here because one cannot establish notability without it. An inline citation is not the same as placing numbers next to the references on a list. This is an electronic encyclopedia, so it's expected that you use electronic <ref>'s to explain where the information come from. This is simply common sense. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as explained above, there is no policy that requires inline citations (see also WP:V#Notes_and_references) or even explicit statements of notability in order to prevent deletion. Google scholar search and the like, to find if an academic's works are highly cited, are perhaps the main criterion for academic notability under WP:PROF, see its Notes and examples section.John Z (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I keep saying to read that section! The first section of WP:Verifiability clearly states that completely referenced inline citations are required. I quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." --WP:BURDEN Because there is no verifiable independent coverage in the article, notability has not been established. And no, the guidelines clearly state that search engine statistics (aka google scholar) are not sufficient to establish notability.. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Wikipedia is not here to be the personal mirror of someone's badly written personal essay. Even the way its written makes it obvious it is just a personal essay and is filled with guesses and maybes with no firm backing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are just reasons to improve the article not deleted as pointed out below. If you're not going to stick with your "not notable" argument, you have nothing left to substantiate a deletion decision. Charles (and plenty others) see notability, and frankly, it's obvious to me too. Pu is already far more notable for the one paper on systolic inequality than many people with bios on Wikipedia and by now I've seen a fair number of weak ones kept. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this. She didn't nominate the page so it could be improved; the intent was deletion as evidenced by everything in this discussion. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not why the page was nominated, but rather whether it should be deleted. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. The deletion nomination was not initiated to improve the page, as you just claimed. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled as to why you should think I claimed that: I did not intend to make any such assertion, I don't think I did and I don't really care anyway. Would it affect the case for deletion or retention either way? Richard Pinch (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you quote this: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." if you did not mean to say that? What do you mean here? --Kraftlos (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, there not only is there not enough on the article justify its notability, I don't believe the subject itself is notable. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the nominator seems to have abandoned the "not notable" argument, instead focusing on aspects of the article that make it weak. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't abandoned anything. I still don't think he's notable except to maybe extreme math geeks. Certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards. I just am not going to bother wasting the energy arguing folks who obviously believe he is somehow notable even without any actual demonstrated significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't even begin to comprehend this argument. The "significant coverage" has been "demonstrated" in the text of this AfD, whether or not you care to read it. First, your argument seems downright insulting to students of mathematics. Second, Wikipedia has numerous articles which are only relevant to students of a field; this does not make them any less notable. And finally, you don't get to say what is or is not notable purely based on your interests. Just because you don't study math doesn't mean no one does. Please think about these things before you push another AfD on a topic that seems uninteresting to you. Try cleanup first. - McCart42 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. 'Nuff said. --C S (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that it was a new article. Had I known that, I would have been a little more forgiving. I jumped on after the discussion got going. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In addition to the comments made, his influence on Harikathe in Karnataka is also cited in Encyclopaedia of Indian literature. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gururajulu Naidu[edit]

Gururajulu Naidu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable religious leader, narrator. Also, there are no reliable sources that confer notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Private Cloud[edit]

Virtual Private Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable, unverifiable buzzword spam/neologism. completely unreferenced despite being tagged as such since may and fails to even assert notability. created by owner of vendor Enomalism (also nominated) who claims to have coined the term. user warned for conflict of interest. should have been speedied already and probably would have if it referenced Enomalism directly. internet search results are the author himself and/or not notable too. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown area graffiti and street art[edit]

Newtown area graffiti and street art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to consist entirely of original research (not to mention copyvios, though there's always some confusion of the copyright status of graffiti at IFD).Take that back, there is freedom of panorama in Australia. I can't find any sources suggesting that this particular graffiti is notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer That Ate My Brother[edit]

The Computer That Ate My Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show the book's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - what criteria are you using as "reliable sources" to check on this book? Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - I see a problem with finding information on this book on the internet since it was written 5 years before the internet became widely used. I think this will require digging into the archives at a library or something. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even without the benefit of a library Worldcat shows that it has been through 6 editions, and is held in 352 US libraries, plus libraries in the UK and Australia. A GoogleBooks search shows 2 scholarly publications that cite this book as a source, see here and here. I'd say it passes WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on the excellent work Tassedethe did digging up sources. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's clearly a difference of opinion about how sources prove the notability of the website. There's no consensus either way, so the default move is to close as no consensus. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House Price Crash[edit]

House Price Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB - Two working sources are given, both of which mention the website, but neither of which have the site as more than a passing mention. In addition, this page makes an interesting read. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But those programs haven't been about him; they've just had him in it. In any case, that claim needs to be sourced, and if it was, it would make Jonathan Davis (property consultant) notable - not this site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me extend this a bit - the only mention of the site on the BBC article is "Jonathan Davis is a Chartered Financial Planner and is also a spokesman for www.HousePriceCrash.co.uk.". The only mention in the other working source is "Websites such as house-pricecrash.co.uk, pricedout.org.uk and globalhouse-pricecrash.com are sticking to their belief that the housing market is in for a rocky ride.". Two passing mentions does not equate to passing WP:WEB - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... except for trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address." [my emphasis]. The sources just state the internet address, they are about the housing market rather than the website, and thus they don't meet WP:WEB. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note They've got a board here where they chronicle mentions in the press. It looks like it's going to be a matter of simply collecting them and putting them on the article. JASpencer (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These only improve the notability of Jonathan Davis... 90% of them mention the website with 'Jonathan Davis, Financial adviser and owner of the website HousePriceCrash.co.uk, says...' - It seems to me to be a list of trivial mentions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - they don't say that the website is notable - they have picked out 25 property blogs and have cited the blog sections not the substantive websites. The link here is a series of articles posted by readers with anonymous comments. TerriersFan (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2008/may/29/housepricesjudgementdayor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-king/stephen-king-as-safe-as-houses-how-harsh-realities-are-dispelling-the-home-market-myths-826288.html
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/06/24/14017/homes-under-the-hammer-double-bill/
It's a notable website and as a result it's noted frequently in national newspapers and on finance / business news programs in the UK when housing related issues are being discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerheid (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Three more passing mentions in articles that are not about the website. Black Kite 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plugs for the website within forum posts attached to a newspaper article are not acceptable references.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a content problem it should be not be dealt with through an AfD, it is a misuse of the process. JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant, perhaps. Notable? per WP:WEB? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does that mean it's notable? Just because an incredibly popular term happens to share the name of the website, it doesn't make the website notable! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err "This site is constantly mentioned in UK media" is what on earth makes it notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Davis is contantly mentioned in UK media, not the site... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's you're (wrong) opinion. The point that was originally made is that the site is constantly reported in the British media. Which it is. JASpencer (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has yet proven that with more than non-trivial references, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you redefine the word trivial this could the case. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" means that most of the references are of the form "Johnathan Davies, from HousePriceCrash.co.uk, said....". That's a trivial reference, because it means that the article isn't about the website, but merely quoting someone who works for it. Black Kite 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that's not quite true, there are quite a few references in this article that don't mention Jonathan. Leaving this aside there are only one or two occassions (not listed in this article) where he is speaking without being presented as a spokesman for "housepricecrash.co.uk" in much the same way that Ray Boulger is the spokesman for Charcoal. He simply wouldn't get on TV as the joint-proprietor of a construction consultancy, as I'm sure he'd admit. And you must ask why do so many (including the American Forbes and the French Liberation) turn to housepricecrash when they need a bearish comment? Because it is (was?) the premier British group that makes the point that property values are overvalued. (Yes, the irony that they are being deleted at the one time when they are proven right is odd). JASpencer (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that House Price Crash is a popular search term suggests that web users are searching for the site, no? I accept that some may be searching for information on falling house prices, but the term is quite specific, and I would suggest that the majority are searching for this particular site. Pandini (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that very much... "House Price Crash" is very much a term refering to the crash in house prices, a concern far more notable than this website. It's far far far more likely that the website makers might have guessed that people could just possibly relate the term "House Price Crash" to crashing house prices because of their super brains... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may doubt it, but Google suggests otherwise http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=housepricecrash&geo=GB&date=&clp=&cmpt=q Pandini (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... that really doesn't make a case for your point; believe it or not, we British citizens are not well known for posting our every single thought on the web, and as of today, google can not yet do mind searches. Thank god i wear this insulating tin foil though! - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't that argument be applied to any other website or magazine, i.e. "you only have to dip into a magazine like GQ to see that..." ? Uncoolbob (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could. Fortunately, most (though i haven't checked them all) can make other claims to notability. My point is that it doesn't have any other kind of reference. It'd only take one article on the actual website, or at least one line claim to notability from a non-trivial source and i'd switch to keep. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "London Tonight" incident? JASpencer (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirstie Allsopp is not an appropriate judge of general consensus or a basis for claim to notability. Her profession is likely to lead her to purposely searching out such niche websites and in the case, it was only spelled out as a specific because as with all cases of expression of negative, it is claimed to be some sort of "incident" like she just dropped a grenade on someone. Her own notability or the manner in which the, *ahem* "incident" was delivered, do not increase its notability either. I am a heavy user of the forum at [59], I could mention the website and make comment on it to other people, that wouldn't however suddenly prove the notability of the website; it is a non-notable website which I know as part of the niche community surrounding it. Should the comment being made on TV have any bearing? Of course it shouldn't. Any commentator in any market segment, industry or topical hobby can mention a website online despite its notability and it is no proof that it is notable. She wasn't specifically making claims to it's "fame", and the reference even specifically words itself as, "a website like housepricecrash.co.uk ", once again generalising the genre. Finally, if any website mentioned on TV deserved an article, than a whole array of websites that had no other serious mention or non-trivial statements made about them would all feature, and we all know from instinct alone that half wouldn't belong. For example, every ClickOnline feature would be on here, along with the websites mentioned on every other show dedicated to the subject. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do either of those statements invalidate notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think there's anything more that can be added to the article - and it doesn't really say much, now! Goose (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racing guantanamo[edit]

Racing guantanamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Australian football (soccer) club. Does not and has never played in the A-League, but in a regional league organized by the Broome Soccer Association. No coverage to be found, 14 ghits in total. Fails WP:NOTE. AmaltheaTalk 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exspurious[edit]

Exspurious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google gives two hit, both related to this article. No need to transwiki. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Considered merge, but the article was entirely unreferenced and contained very little encyclopedic content. I am willing to userfy this article to any editor who in good faith would like to merge content. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola MPx220[edit]

Motorola MPx220 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and quickly obsolesced commercial product. No claim of notability offered in article; no references provided to substantiate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motorola MPx200. Information can be covered in a section of this article. Sebwite (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola T720[edit]

Motorola T720 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quickly-obsolesced commercial product. No claim to notability offered in article; no references used to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Motorola product catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as most probable hoax, and for lack of usable content anyway. -- lucasbfr talk 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanky language[edit]

Spanky language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable subject, probably a hoax. A google search of "Spanky language" with or without quotes give one relevant hit that I can find. That one is to a website that requires registration. Also, this is not a language it is only a different way of speaking English. Jons63 (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Firsfron as G1, patent nonsense. (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer of Catan[edit]

Emporer of Catan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity page for a game-player Oddharmonic (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enomalism[edit]

Enomalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable, unverifiable advert created by company owner. probably should have been speedied already as spam (G11); also does not even attempt to claim subject is notable (A7). warning user for conflict of interest. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional weak keep - [61], [62] (be sure to look at all links - has some interesting statistical analysis on it). presentation at infoworld [63] - i found this to be rather interesting for a open source project. I believe the article is salvageable, but a lot of work needs to be done on it. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is irrelevant. This link, like the article itself, reads like an advert and is not particularly notable as an opinion piece anyway. 193.253.141.64 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but it does establish that the article was created soley to advertise a commercial product and is thus spam (G11). Earlier versions were blatant copyvios too (G12). It's surprising it lasted this long given associated articles (Enomaly, Reuven Cohen) were already repeatedly deleted. WaikiScrubber (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. It has been discussed in detail that the Dutch wikipedia deleted this article. Sister projects have their own policies and guidelines for notability and their local wiki consensus is likely different than ours on many matters. Although if another wiki has researched a matter and has a viewable page with coherent and relevant information to the discussion at hand, it is obviously helpful to reference such a discussion. But we do not generally ignore our own consensus-forming processes and blindly follow what a sister project has done without reevaluating the details against our own policies and guidelines. So for this to be the central argument for deletion here, is quite problematic. Several wikipedians (as well as the subject himself) have offered reasonable evidence that the subject is at least marginally notable under WP:Music, and so I find keeping the article is the reasonable thing to do. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tjako van Schie[edit]

Tjako van Schie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some people are interwiki spamming the article about this Dutch musician who has no encyclopedic value. He is at the most localy famous in his town or gemeente. It was decided on the Dutch Wikipedia a long time ago by a majority that this man was not encyclopedic but the people who thought/think he was/is didn't stop there, now they do things like this. Jorrit-H (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed from wiki-nl and wiki-zea forself promotion. Jorrit-H (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be Dutch hunter again too: Robotje.! And for the nominator: it has to be closed: this AfD. Don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created; it screams of bad faith. In addition, your rationale -- albeit consisting of only a few words, was weak at best.
  • I decided to give this article a final thought by checking the reasons for removal the the dutch wikipedia to determine if i might have overlooked anything in my analysis below. I have to say i find it interesting that the AFD on dutch wikipedia actually seems to have been based upon a ballot, and I am honest if i say that my faith in the fairness of the removal of this article over there is actually rather low.
The last AFD of this article is literally riddled with votes that should not have had any influence on the removal process. Votes without comments, Votes that state personal opinions as opposed to rules, votes that actually make no sense at all (Freely translated example: Delete: This article is just a going to cause problems. User (Tjako red.) cannot correctly handle it). There is actually a vote that is an outright swear against the article's subject. And worse of all? Apparently ALL these votes are actually counted towards the result. I would conclude that an AFD like this should have no influence on the AFD procedure here, as it is (Excuse my words) plain garbage where a well thought of vote is apparently worth little more then a content less vote. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Van Schie is not only teaching for Masters' classes practice at the Amsterdam Conservatory but elsewhere too, as e.g. 'stated': in Porto. - But foremost he's a piano virtuoso to be heard of, secondly creating music compositions. Of course he teaches as professor as inherently well. Yours: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)[reply]
In order to get some form of debate instead of the current mudslinging, i have (To the best of my abilities) tried to verify if this article is compliant with the relevant guidelines.
- WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. According to these two guidelines self written articles are strongly discouraged by the community in order to prevent any self promotion. While being strongly discouraged, they are not outright forbidden. The article itself seems compliant to WP:NPOV. I see no personal opinions and the majority of the text is actually sourced. In fact, the article is in a better state then many of the other articles. Personally i would therefore say that the article does not suffer from standard autobio issues. in case this is really a problem, an autobio template could be added.
- WP:N / WP:Music and WP:V. The notability of this article depends upon compliance with the two guidelines mentioned. If the article would be evaluated based upon presumed notability, rather then on one of the more specific WP:MUSIC guidelines, the outcome would be weak. Part of the sources are newspapers, but most of the coverage is local or trivial. However, when evaluated against the music guideline, Subsection number 6 "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" seems to come into play. This article in the china daily confirms that he has been on an international tour, and i would say the article qualified as more then just "Trivial" coverage.
The article also mentions that Schie has won several "prestigious international piano contests such as the Debussy Talent Contest in Holland, the Vladiguerov Piano Competition in Bulgaria, the Bellini Music Competition in Italy and the Marguerite Long Competition in France" My musical knowledge is not enough to determine how important those competitions are, but it might skim across music guideline 8: Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Last, the article makes a mention of appearances in several international festivals. While this is not in a notability guideline per se, it could indicate notability. As a conclusion, i would say that the individual discussed is at least mentioned enough times to invalidate any "he has been deleted elsewhere" issues. While the exact extend of his notability can be discussed, and is based for a large part on a single article, i would say deleting the article in its current state would be deleting a possible good article. While he might not be the worlds most notable person i am upping my own vote to "Keep" unless someone can prove to me that the reasoning stated above is invalid. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist academies and elementary schools#Puerto Rico, as merging has already taken place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Academy schools in Puerto Rico[edit]

Seventh-day Adventist Academy schools in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List containing only contact information for external schools, with no internal wiki links whatsoever. Originally G11 tagged but the creator removed the phone and website info (And the G11). Doesn't fall under G11 anymore, but it is still not the kind of page to keep around. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 09:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article falls under WP:NOT, directory subsection. The initial article was even speedy-able as all it did was list contact information for the schools in question. When the user creating the article removed the CSD template and removed the contact info i decided to treat the article as an opposed prod rather then actually placing a prod or replacing the CSD (The user already contested the CSD, so he or she would likely also contest a prod).
I see no problems with handling an article this way. Articles are evaluated at near real time not only by me, but by the majority of the people doing newpage patrol. While i agree that i could (and should) probably have placed a prod in this case, it would still be placed a minute after creation. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois[edit]

"The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious sources seem to mask an advert for a product. Listing ticket prices is a clear indication of a lack of notability. Harro5 09:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, as blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). AngelOfSadness talk 15:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finam[edit]

Finam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little or no encyclopedic info created by a User:Finam in self interest. No clear assertion of notability other than as a private holding. Looks like an advert and as it is at present not suitable for wikipedia. A quick google search shows that it could certianly be a notable article in Russian financing but at present it is far from having the content and text that a proper article on it should. The Bald One White cat 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Mendoza (singer)[edit]

Miguel Mendoza (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Game show contestant only really notable for this event. No third party references or sources to support a claim to notability. Suggest a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansen Nichols / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugoy Bogayan. Since the prod was contested, the redirect would likely be removed as well, so bringing here for consensus opinion. CultureDrone (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Foster Care Council of Canada[edit]

The Foster Care Council of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While this may sound like an official body, it is not; rather, it is a six-man show trying to change how Foster Care works. They have no Google News results and the first 30 pages of a regular search show nothing in the nature of a WP:RS. As such I don't think that this organization meets the inclusion requirements at WP:ORG or the verifiability requirements at WP:V.

The author, User:Afterfostercare, is Mr. John F. Dunn, who had his own article deleted three times for various reasons. While he has at all times been courteous and well-meaning, unfortunately his edits bear the hallmarks of a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, and judging from his recent message to me, he is trying to use Wikipedia as a directory or soapbox. I have taken his name off of the John Dunn dab page and I think most of the links to his website are gone at this stage.

Finally, although an A7 speedy may be appropriate here, I would appreciate taking the five days to go through the discussion and finally close the matter Stifle (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Benedictum. Insufficient notability for a seperate article but is an appropriate redirect Davewild (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Freeman[edit]

Veronica Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search turned up one interview with subject to work with for WP:RS. There isn't enough to support a separate article for this singer. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWOL (rapper)[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC and general standards for verifiability when dealing with biographical articles. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid: A Love Story[edit]

Morbid: A Love Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MOVIE. Not yet released, with a non-notable distribution company. Edward Payson, the director, is a blue link--but the article is about a different person entirely. Amber Rose could be any one of three people. Nobody else associated with the film appears to have any notability. Of the several "source," every one is a horror blog type site, and they restate the exact same information, apparently originating from a common press release. The film "is said" to be playing at some festivals (non-specified) before going on to dvd release. Movingboxes (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Zampino[edit]

Sheree Zampino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN, if she's most notable for formerly being married to a celebrity, that's not notable enough to have an article. Ckessler (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - article was a hoax. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh The A4 and friends[edit]

Hugh The A4 and friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax, cannot find any mention of this in Google Somno (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the creator blanked the AfD page and wrote "HUGH THE A4 AND FRIENDS IS NOT A HOAX OR COPYING THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE! IF YOU DELETE THE PAGE ALL PAGES WILL BE PUT UP FOR DELETION BY ME!". I'm now changing my vote to Strong Delete and propose a possible ban on the creator of this page for vandalism and continued threats (just how exactly can you put all pages up for deletion?). Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this author/vandal believes that you own the articles you create. I'll leave a WP:OWN warning on his usertalk. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Gulyas[edit]

Valentin Gulyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable youth player. The only external source I found is this. So he might be his youth team's most valuable player, but that's it. Seems as if the article was started by his father or himself, btw. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral thinking[edit]

Lateral thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information seems to be from the primary source of the term, Edward de Bono, and not from sources independent of Edward de Bono. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but the article seems to be de Bono's views on lateral thinking, which should be sourced to third party material, not de Bono's material, and can be included in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Suntag (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for not making the nomination clearer. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. The present article is of significant length, all of which avoids using any of "dozen books on the subject on Amazon with at least four different authors", which supports the position that there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. Which brings us to the topic of the article: de Bono's views on lateral thinking. If there were Wikipedia reliable sources for the article topic, de Bono's views on lateral thinking could be sourced to third party material, which they are not. You might wish to keep an article about lateral thinking, but that is not the topic of this article. This article ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is coatrack for a tangentially related bias subject: de Bono's views on lateral thinking to the exclusion of the general topic. de Bono's views on lateral thinking can be discussed in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Improving the article's presentation of de Bono's views on lateral thinking would still make the article a coatrack. Also, this is not an improvement situation where the article was on a correct path and veered off that path. Since the article appears to lack desirable qualities to promote, improvement does not seem to be an answer. -- Suntag (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X Operations[edit]

X Operations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article presents no substantial coverage that the game may have had from independent, reliable sources (WP:N), or references of any kind (WP:V). With only 400 ghits for "team mitei" (the usual directory entries, download sites, etc) I find it unlikely that it passes notability guidelines at this time. Marasmusine (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Andrus[edit]

Elvis Andrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player yet to reach the majors. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask, and ye shall receive. Source has been added. Mlaffs (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full keep then. Wizardman 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neftali Feliz[edit]

Neftali Feliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball player yet to reach the majors. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Skin Album[edit]

Untitled Skin Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's hammer time! Tavix (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Grosser[edit]

Berta Grosser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently a hoax. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Possible_vanity_article_and_autobiography. Has been deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia as a hoax, nothing in the German Wikipedia, no reliable sources that she even exists. Corvus cornixtalk 04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved discussion to RfD. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Median Border[edit]

Battle of the Median Border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have no idea what is going on here, all edits are by one account. Corvus cornixtalk 05:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. As Ave Caesar points out, ghits are not an adequate criteria for establishing notability. SmashvilleBONK! 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is the REAL threat to the 1%!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bridgeport, Connecticut. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Creek (Connecticut)[edit]

Cedar Creek (Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete for non-notability and for being a possible hoax. Google search turned up irrelevent hits only. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. In the first 3 minutes of the article's existence, did the nominator find time to Google this creek amongst tagging it confusing (minute 1), tagging it as a hoax (minute 2), and bringing it to AfD (minute 3)? This creek seems fairly easy to find in a search. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) Not a hoax according to the Google Maps link on the page, but notability's another matter. Karenjc 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a complete lack of notability. Nominator's ruminations about "possible hoax" are silly and completely irrelevant to any discussion. All that did was call attention to the "premature e-nomination" speed, which is also completely irrelevant to any discussion. It all comes down to notability. I'm sure the creek exists, but who cares? Inhabited locations are considered notable, but we don't have articles about every little creek, fork, branch of a river, babbling brook, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Could you, Mandsford, comment on this without attacking me? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, Arbiteroftruth, have nominated the article without attacking the author? When you accuse a contributor of pepretrating "a possible hoax", you're in no position to be indignant. Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When someone, apparently without taking the time to do research, accuses another editor incorrectly of creating a hoax article, I agree there is little room for indignation when the hoax accusations are called "silly." Next time, do a little research before making accusations that a geographic feature found on maps is a hoax. Edison2 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy/Snowball Keep per proven notability and consensus through the discussion. The article does need come cleanup, which would avoid it from being mistakenly taken for a neologism and being nominated again. (non-admin closure). RedThunder 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal[edit]

Nu metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article focuses on a neologism that has been tagged onto many mainstream/popular rock groups by a handful of music critics. It is poorly referenced, and seems to rely heavily on original research. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: appears to be notable' "Nu Metal" +Music returns 2,890,000 GHITS. Also, there are multiple categories for Category:Nu metal musical groups present on Wikipedia (created as far back as 2005), so I doubt this is a word that someone WP:MADEUP recently. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's a notable subject, but it needs immense improvement. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: legit genre mentioned on all major music media site has like a half million hits on google it could be improved.--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, but is certainly notable. I get 606 Google News hits and 479 Google Books hits. AfD is not cleanup. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It certainly is a notable topic. The nominator brings up no policy to delete it by, just the fact that it may need clean-up Tavix (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a notable topic; as others have said, it needs to be cleaned up. BBCOFFEECAT (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Widely used term, but article is a tad unencyclopedic in tone. Nerdluck34 (The master of sock puppets) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. Term is widely used and surpasses the state of neologism in any aspect. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Paes[edit]

Julia Paes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable porn actress per WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Only one cited source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Calor (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: hasn't won a major award + hasn't made unique contributions + hasn't been featured non-trivially in mainstream media = shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be purely an advertising attempt. Huadpe (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person. Article cites no reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 23:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as no reliable sources have yet to be provided. RFerreira (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sickness: The Story of Nu Metal[edit]

The Sickness: The Story of Nu Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article focuses on a supposed documentary that turns up limited results on Google, and, to top it off, focuses on a neologism used to describe any popular rock band. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable, unreleased film and is currently just an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete without prejudice; can be recreated when the film is release and if it meets the notability criteria for films. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- I might be more amendable to re-creation of this page 1) if the film were already released and 2) the article contained more detail about the filmmakers and the actual content and structure of the film. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as above WikiScrubber (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. TravellingCari 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sabrccia[edit]

Michael Sabrccia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without explanation or improvements to the article. Both Google and the Association of Tennis Professionals official website came up with absolutely nothing related to this player. Non-notable player, unable to verify anything in the article. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced; does not establish notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete limited Google results (and by "limited" I mean that the only two results are Wikipedia pages) suggest to me that this is a hoax or that this person is not notable. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny that a registered user created the page and has edited it, but an IP editor pops up every time anyone suggests deletion and removes the tag without improving the page or participating in the discussion. Now why would an editor's first and only contributions be to remove deletion messages from articles? hmmmm Beeblbrox (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I just had to replace the AfD message again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and AmeIiorate, I confirmed no results when searching Google, also no mention found in the 'references' listed (www.usta.com, www.usopen.com).   -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had to replace the AfD template for the third time. The article was created by an single purpose account and now a probable IP sock has been blocked for repeatedly removing the template, so I'm also asking that this be create-protected, since this user is clearly not interested in discussing the matter and is very slow to take a hint. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monastic remains[edit]

Monastic remains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Submitted anonymously, untouched for over 2 years, looks like a prank. Does "The Geologist" even exist? Not at List_of_scientific_journals_in_earth_and_atmospheric_sciences#Geology --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short, poorly written and unreferenced article. Absolutely no assurance of notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

*Weak Keep- I did manage to find something on Monastic remains from reputable or civilian sources. This page does need MAJOR rewriting, however. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thammy Miranda[edit]

Thammy Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There was an AfD on pt-wiki pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Thammy Miranda and although most of the people voted for deletion, the article was kept (because the deletion decisions on pt-wiki depend on the number of votes not consensus and it's necessary 2/3 of the votes to delete). It's only one of the Gretchen's daughters. Not notable per WP:BIO, neither WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:PORNBIO. Tosqueira (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Leaf[edit]

Canadian Heritage Leaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is unsourced, similar to the hoax created at Canadian Vintage Leaf Flag. The article sources do not even mention about this "heritage" leaf and are just random links to hockey sites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the one link [71] to show that Hockey Canada will continue to use in its words "the all-important Hockey Canada heritage logo" which uses the Heritage Leaf. It has also been called and sold as the Vintage Leaf [72], but Hockey Canada has officially designated it as indicated. Not sure what further information is needed to maintain the article - any help in preventing deletion and not just criticism would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemike1 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perecman & Fanning[edit]

Perecman & Fanning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Small New York personal injury law firm, makes no claim to notability with regards to number of attorneys or other personnel, dollar amount of revenues, famous lawyers practicing there, or anything else that the rest of the law firm articles on Wikipedia should have. See Category:Law firms of the United States and look at some of the articles in there to understand what I mean. Eastlaw (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, insignificant refs, not notable ukexpat (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems like an advertisement. Mediterraneo (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nonnotable law firm. No refs, etc. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable, and now that it's disbanded, never will be. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max B[edit]

This artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. There was a stint of news related to an attempted robbery, but nothing substantial. JBsupreme (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryline Blackburn[edit]

Maryline Blackburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is that she finished ahead of Sarah Palin in a beauty contest. Not notable by herself. Cogswobbletalk 02:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only reference on the page is to a personal site, and a Google search hasn't led me to a single secondary source on her, just a bunch of profiles on various social networking sites. There is no reason to believe this person is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huadpe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the Miss Alaskas are notable. If you want more references, add them. The article is brand new. Give it a chance to get some body. Kingturtle (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there are no references. If someone can find and add references that indicate why Maryline Blackburn is notable, then this article should be kept. But there don't appear to be any. Cogswobbletalk 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course there are no other references -- the Sarah Palin story just broke. Give it some time. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the "Sarah Palin story" has virtually nothing to do with Marylin Blackburn. The only remotely relevant factor is that Palin finished second, the person who finished first is completely irrelevent to the story. Cogswobbletalk 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Palin aside, all U.S. state pageant winners are notable. Kingturtle (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This person is notable. My guess as to why the article may have been requested for deletion is perhaps that there is not enough information. Upon looking through the links that were listed on the article itself, I saw at least one bio. It should be enough information to make a larger article. Plus the fact that she beat out Palin in a beauty contest, someone that MAY be a future vice president, makes her notable enough for me to want to know more about her. Monkeytheboy (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gastón Castro[edit]

Gastón Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From my understanding of WP:BIO, a person should have multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources that offer non-trivial coverage of that person for an article on Wikipedia to exist about the subject. All the sources that I have found that mention Castro, including the source that is cited in the article, are football reports which state that he was a referee for the matches they are reporting on. I believe this is trivial coverage of the person, and I do not believe this article meets WP:BIO as a result. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I tried to inform the only major contributor, and creator, of this article, SndrAndrss, about this discussion. However, I discovered that this user has been blocked indefinetly from editing Wikipedia. I say this in case people would like to hear a defence of this article by its only major contributor. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Animated Universe[edit]

Disney Animated Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be original research, drawing original conclusions from existing material. Prod removed without comment by creator without comment or change. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section was on the freakin Lilo & Stitch TV Series Page. Are you red-flagging them for this matter. Besides, it was all on television and if you don't believe, watch these episodes for yourself!!!!Disneyvillainman (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. It was quite speedy; have you really been able to read and understand our original research policy so quickly? An understanding of that policy is essential for defending this article; you'll need to show the reliable sources that confirm that this article isn't original research. The television episodes themselves won't qualify for that; you'll need to look to magazines, newspapers, books, and significant online web sites (ideally, independent of Disney itself).
  • Delete, original research synthesized from existing material with additional editorial comment, not encyclopedic. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have not been able to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources that employ the term "Disney Animated Universe". As a result, I believe the article is covering a neologism, and I believe the article should be deleted as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, and I'm not even sure most of these entries are true to begin with. If they are, they seem to be more 'wink-wink' inside jokes more than actual continuity between the series. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. This is pathetic. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has a ban on "original synthesis" and that's what this is. Basically, the cartoon series Lilo and Stitch has moments where a character from another Disney cartoon appears with Lilo (or Stitch). The book Wayne's World: Extreme Closeup had an "interview" that Wayne had with Charo, that closed with, "Oh, wait, one more question. Did you ever notice that Green Acres, Petticoat Junction and The Beverly Hillbillies were all linked in the same reality?" Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a possible attempt at creating a Disney version of DC Universe, etc. No indication that this is a term or concept that's being widely used. Just because shows crossover from time to time doesn't mean they necessarily belong to one identified "universe" or canon. I'm willing to revisit my "vote" if reliable sources are added suggesting that Disney is in fact attempting to create a DCU-like situation. Otherwise, as noted, this is OR. (BTW the above example re: Beverley Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Petticoat Junction is actually a bad example because in that case CBS and the producers did consciously set out to create an interrelated "universe" with those shows. A better example might be shows like Empty Nest and Golden Girls and a few others that were artificially linked in the 1980s because of a few ratings-boosting crossovers, but otherwise they shared no common connection. 23skidoo (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually Empty Nest was a direct spinoff of Golden Girls, taking place in the same neighborhood as the Girls and produced by the same company (Nurses was an Empty Nest spinoff in itself). I know, splitting hairs and all that. The TGIF stunts might be a more perfect comparison to this article, where somehow the kids of Full House had to be subjected to Steve Urkel, and of course the painful 3-D week of 1995 where all the shows made you wear the horrible glasses while they threw things at the camera (I have never recovered). Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:OR. Schuym1 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just reading the article gives me a headache. Original research, and a rather poor one at that -- merely a list of "guest stars" appearing on other Disney series, not true crossovers. -- azumanga (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moynihan’s law[edit]

Moynihan’s law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

According to WP:NEO: "A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." This article fails that guideline. There are no citations at all (therefore failing WP:V), and the two external links are editorials that use the neologism "Moynihan's Law," without attempting academic discussion of it. I did a Google search, and didn't come up with anything substantive that could save this article. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not a lot of ghits, but many of them are relevant and on nontrivial sites [77], [78], [79], [80]. A surprising number of them do reference Wikipedia but the chicken-and-egg issue now seems irrelevant. JJL (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked over the four links you gave, and I disagree with your assessment.
      • The first link is a scholarly article that contains the phrase "Moynihan's law," but it is not the same "law" referenced in the article nominated here. Please double-check the context and you will see it is talking about something completely different.
      • The second link is an Indian magazine of unknown importance that mentions Moynihan's law, but references only... the Wikipedia article! You can't establish verifiability in this roundabout fashion. To cite this article would basically be citing ourselves since there is nothing else there.
      • The third link is an op-ed from the New Statesman which uses the term, but is not in any way about the term. This citation would fail WP:NEO. It's also of marginal importance at best, and I think that citing an op-ed in this fashion would violate WP:WEIGHT.
      • The fourth link is a partisan blog post which consists of all of two paragraphs. This clearly fails our guidelines for reliable sourcing and undue weight; furthermore, once again, it merely uses the term and is not about the term.
    • I just don't see anything worth keeping here, nor any way to make this article into more than a WP:DICDEF of a neologism and/or a list of people who used the term. *** Crotalus *** 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JJL, you said "A surprising number of them do reference Wikipedia but the chicken-and-egg issue now seems irrelevant." Why do you consider the issue irrelevant? A source which cites Wikipedia to support its assertion is unreliable, and unreliable sources cannot be used to prove that Moynihan’s law is established (please see WP:NEO), and I agree with Crotalus's assessments regarding the other sources that have been cited. I have not found multiple, reliable, independent and secondary sources to suggest that Moynihan’s law is not a neologism, and thus I believe the article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was convinced the term is used (and I did note that the Georgetown link used it in a different way). I wasn't talking about whether there were verifiable reliable sources to establish what exactly the law was, though that seemed clear to me scanning the pages found--I felt it was used sufficiently to justify having a WP article on the term. The rest is up to the editors of the page. JJL (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The law may exist, but unless multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources are found which offer non-trivial coverage of this term, it fits the definition of a neologism. A website that cites only Wikipedia, a blog, an article which does not discuss the term, and a website that does not talk about the specific law in the article, do not prove the term is more than a neologism. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of sources.Brammarb (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above WikiScrubber (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow bondage[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elbow bondage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by the elbow, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this term is not notable. It is also possible to bind many other human appendages and there is no indication that binding the elbows is more notable than binding any other limb or joint. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable in itself. Granted, there is adequate RS for a Wiktionary entry and this paragraph in an existing bondage article. HG | Talk 10:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term exists but is a non-notable dict def, and WP is not a how-to guide even if I can think of some people who oh, never mind...  Frank  |  talk  11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Sorry, folks, you'll have to learn about elbow bondage on your own! Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - survived AFD in 2007, bringing it again so soon is really a type of forum shopping. Merging with Bondage, or other articles would be fine. Regarding earlier comments, even if fringe, it is notable, which is why it has references. Atom (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was deleted as a result of the previous AfD. This is a new article subsequently created about the same topic... WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that also, by Googling "Elbow bondage"; it intrigued me that an irrelevant link appeared in second place during a search for an, apparently, notable topic - surely if this were notable, a commentary link would have been drowned out by reliable sources? ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in fact I believe this could be speedied as the recreation of previously-deleted (via AFD consensus) content. Esteffect (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently a new article about a nonnotable subject which was deleted fro lack of multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. Since this one also lacks such sources, delete it again and salt to prevent recreation. Edison2 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- completely non-notable thing that barely appears in WP:RS- this is the only mention I could find, and that's a passing one. [[81] Sticky Parkin 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no one cares about that completely unimportant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youpi-youpi (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have provided a substantial reference from one of the best-known published books on BDSM. There is also an article in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary; while that originally derived from the old Wikipedia article, the presence of the article in the dictionary shows that the BDSM community regard it as notable.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in one in-subject book hardly establishes notability. Just because it is notable to the BDSM community does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article; this isn't Wipipedia. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone argue that just because the Mayor of some American city is notable in that city, he does not deserve an article because this isn't Kansascitypedia?--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. I have no objection to the subject but there are no reliable publications currently available to support an encyclopedic document at the moment. RFerreira (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced a reliable publication sufficient to source at least a stub.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No references to reliable sources. The "keep" opinions do not address this.  Sandstein  16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair bondage[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hair bondage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term. Although it is obviously possible to bind someone by their hair, there is nothing to suggest tying someone up in this manner deserves separate coverage. WJBscribe (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this term is not notable. It is also possible to bind many other human appendages and there is no indication that binding the hair is more notable than binding any other limb, joint or protein. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term exists but is not notable or unique to the practice described. Ghits exist, but I can't find any coverage of the practice that asserts any notability to it. GNews hits refer to something else, as do gbooks hits. If it's this hard to find any discussion of it, it's probably not notable. I can be convinced otherwise with reliable sources, but this is the second AfD for this article, and they do not appear to be forthcoming...  Frank  |  talk  11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - survived AFD in 2007, bringing it again so soon is really a type of forum shopping. Merging with Bondage, or other articles would be fine. Regarding earlier comments, it is notable, even if barely so, and it does "deserve coverage" if it is notable. Atom (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I found this from the last AFD http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13118 Atom (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dang, they better not delete this! If they start deleting "how to" articles written solely from the perspective of personal experience and commercially-linked photos (3 women, no men), without so much as one footnote, then what will Wikipedia look like after these types of articles are gone? Holy crap, imagine the consequences of them going from 2,000,000 back to 1,000,000 articles!"
    Compelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this started as more of a sexist concept, women tending to have longer hair, this is a growing fetish arena for all sexes and like so many others has videos, websites, forums, etc. devoted to the subject. Not my thing per se but that's no reason to delete it. Banjeboi 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so fails notability. Recommend deleting and salting to prevent re-creation. Edison2 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable term. A google search reveals no reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete several books using the term don't even mean it in the same sense as this. They mean recreating the same hairdo your mum had!:) [82] the same with the news mentions [83]. The only book using it is a self-published work of fiction, which simply puts it on a list of wierd things people do. [84] Sticky Parkin 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an entry in the Informed Consent BDSM Dictionary, which shows that the BDSM community regard the concept as notable. There are also two external links. if Sticky parkin has found another meaning, he may create a new article, but that is no reason to delete this one.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in one in-subject book hardly establishes notability. Just because it is notable to the BDSM community does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article; this isn't Wipipedia. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone argue that just because the Mayor of some American city is notable in that city, he does not deserve an article because this isn't Kansascitypedia?--Whipmaster (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue isn't, in this case, the notability as much as the verifiability. At this point the article has to be rewritten to show the many terms used for the practice, a bit of the history and reliable sources supporting that it's covered as a subject. I know it's notable enough and you may but that doesn't sway the other folks here enough. Banjeboi 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kansascitypedia or not, a subject is considered notable if it meets the criteria in the notability guidelines; a mayor of a city is notable due to the media attention they gain (significant, reliable coverage, independent of the subject). "Hair bondage" does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. So even though it is notable in some circles (or should I say chains?) it does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. SmashvilleBONK! 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Kids[edit]

Chess Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy (that is itself a recreation of a speedily deleted article). Chess club for schoolchildren. No assertion of notability, absolutely fails WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - has no reliable sources (in fact no sources at ALL), and fails to assert notability. Interestingly (or not) there's also a non-notable independent film named Chess Kids. -- JediLofty UserTalk 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is worth nothing if we can't learn random facts from it!  ;) Movingboxes (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True... like the fact that elephants can't jump! -- JediLofty UserTalk 10:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The website given at the external link shows franchise opportunities are available. This article is, probably unwittingly, advertising a commercial enterprise. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation is notable in accordance with the criteria given at WP:ORG. The information may be true, but it isn't verifiable. The creator of the article has only ever contributed to this article, so there is likely a WP:COI. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was able to find a couple of press releases from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group. Was also able to find this article from The Age. Together, I think they probably add up to enough to just scrape past the notability threshold. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep - the sources above barely make it notable, but they make it notable enough to keep. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a university newsletter does not establish notability.--Lester 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above vote was made by an IP address that has made no other edits in Wikipedia.--Lester 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable & verifiable. The organization runs chess tournaments for students at hundreds of schools. At least a few of their regional tournaments have been hosted at a university and received news coverage. I saw the article for the first time from this AfD, did a bit of cleanup and added a couple footnotes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: New information - 'Chess Kids' is not merely "a Chess organisation" or "an educational organisation", as it says in the article. It is a private company called Chess Kids Pty Ltd (ABN 43 118 087 871) that markets and sells chess products for the profit of its shareholders. The company is currently trying to get people to invest in franchises in this business. The Wikipedia article does not represent this Pty Ltd company for what it is. It should be deleted.--Lester 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the company is non-profit or for-profit does not affect its notability for having an article. So what if the reason they sponsor the chess tournaments is so they can sell their stuff? It's the notability and verifiability that determines keeping or deleting the article, not whether or not the company is altruistic or profit-motivated. If you have reliable sources regarding their business model, that would be good info to add to the article, please do so, if you wish. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is whether it is the National Interschool Chess Championships or the marketing company 'Chess Kids Pty Ltd' that is more notable.--Lester 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on your comment, I found a reference in a Fox News newspaper that specifies that the National Interschool Chess Championships is a production of Chess Kids. You may be pleased to know that the same reference also describes them as a marketing company, founded by a chess enthusiast. So I've edited the lead of the article to reflect that information and add the additional news article reference. The several additional references now in the article further support the company's notability and verifiability. So, no, this article should not be deleted. But with your apparent interest in the topic, you can make the article much better yet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It concerns me that there is not very much information about this company, Chess Kids Pty Ltd. Yes, in The Age article about the 'National Interschool Chess Championships' we saw that Chess Kids was mentioned, and it also interviewed David Cordover. However, most of the article was about the schoolchildren and the event, and about the popularity of chess in schools. There is not much information about the company itself (what this article is supposed to be about). We don't know about the company's franchising business. We don't know about its relationship to the other company, the book and accessory retailer ChessWorld Pty Ltd, which seems to be run by the same guy (one owns the other, maybe?). We need significant coverage about the company itself, not about whether or not chess is popular in schools. We need a lot more information about the company to justify an article about the company. I think the mainstream coverage about company information is marginal.--Lester 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lester, I respect your concerns, but your comment addresses article content issues, not considerations of criteria for deletion. I've already entered my comments regarding the notability and verifiability of the article subject, so I'll leave it to consensus and the closing admin to take it from here. Best wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on Lester, before your edits to the article, it wasn't even about the company, it was about the tournament organisation ([85]). Changing the article to be about the private company that runs the tournaments, and then arguing for deletion on the grounds that there is little information about the company seems a bit unusual and a bit unfair. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tournament organisation just happens to be sponsored by the company "Chess Kids", which charges "$50 per half-hour, or $70 for a 1-hour session" (ask about our group rates, $30 per person for a half hour, $40 per person for a 1-hour session). Please don't waste anyone's time by showcasing this as an article about a chess tournament for Australian children. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. New references. Because the AfD was relisted, I took another look at Google and found some more references and added them the article, including info about the innovative business model of the company, and the surprising fact that when the company was started, its founder was only 20 years old. In the ten years since then, it's pretty amazing what he's accomplished. Last year, 9,000 children competed in the Chess Kids national interschool tournament. The added references include another national newspaper, a case study in a national business newsletter, and an article by the Chess Kids founder that was published in the respected Teacher: the National Education Magazine. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The range of references seems sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). WWGB (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep barely notable, but promotional, references itself, etc. - needs cleaning up WikiScrubber (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lankiveil noted earlier that there were a couple of press releases "from the (unaffiliated, as far as I can tell) Monash University discussing the group." Monash University is hardly unaffiliated. The article proposed for deletion says, "Chess Kids has presented the National Interschool Chess Championship for three years in conjunction with Monash University, with the most recent event held in December 2007 at the Monash Clayton campus. The 48 hour tournament hosted 226 student players, from 45 schools. Monash University plans to host the event again in 2008." Krakatoa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited sufficiently establish notability, IMO. Krakatoa (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pengiran Omar[edit]

Pengiran Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reardless of systemic bias, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this person. He was a city administrator, then a sailor? Even if there were reliable sources in English, if that's all that there is to say about him, he doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Corvus cornixtalk 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Dear Mr Cornix, sorry for the misjudgment yesterday. I didn't understand the deletion process. Actually the was a sailor in his early age and then became an administrator. And the reference was added to make it true and see User Talk:Road Wizard for the cause of little reference. --Mohd wara (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree for you to delete the article because of the resources are in the malay language. --Mohd wara (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Comment removed by Mohd wara with this edit. Road Wizard (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: regardless of what language the sources are in, nothing in the article indicates what makes him notable. Corvus cornixtalk 20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Problem - Dear Mr.Cornvix there are information on him that he was a party founder in Sabah but the this information is from a secondary source. So its not very accurate so I will put a sign for that. Thanks --Mohd wara (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More